Paul and the Gospel

[LinkTheGameFreak]

With the new feature this might be helpful but this is a question I'm struggling with dealing with my girlfriend's grandparent's beliefs.

They're very strictly religious and after TinyDancer mentioned this:
Yes but he was a raging misogynist as well. Said women shouldn't be able to speak in temples, had to cover their heads, were property, etc. Anyways..

I started thinking about it more - the way they practice their faith has alot to do with what Paul said in his letters - what seems to be like the outdated and ceremonial type of religious parts.

When I refer to how they practice I specifically mean:
• The women are not allowed to cut their hair
• Long skirts are to be worn by the women as are long sleeve shirts so their elbows can't be seen
• They don't have a television

If you are wondering what part of Christianity they follow, it's like "Holiness" or something (I've never heard of it before I moved down here to E'ville)

I think the question I am asking is in response to TD in that if Paul was a misogynist, does that make what he said about how women are to act null and void or is their other evidence other than what he said for those things?

Please keep your comments that are off topic out of this thread and please try to have a civilized conversation :)

[Protosschick99]

Glad ya started this Link!!

Alrighty--As for saying that women can't do this, can't do that, can't whatever--That's pure bondage man.....I feel bad for them because my family grew up in a church like that--I remember when I was little how I couldn't wear pants or make-up or cut my hair........Thank God we were delivered! :D

Okay anywayz, back to Paul and women--The reason Paul said all those things about women being silent in the church, is because the Jews had just reformed their faith. They went from practicing the Old Covenant, into the New Covenant--And because it was a transition period, the men still sat on one side, and the women sat on another. So while someone would be preaching and teaching the Word, one of the ladies or several of them, would be asking their husbands who sat ACROSS from them what that person meant during the service. It was disruptive! It took away from the order of the service, so that's why Paul said they should remain quiet.

As for wearing skirts and such, that goes along the lines of women should wear what women should wear and a man should wear what a man should wear......Darnit, I gotta get to bed. This is really interesting! I'll write more tomorrow! :D

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Glad ya started this Link!!

Alrighty--As for saying that women can't do this, can't do that, can't whatever--That's pure bondage man.....I feel bad for them because my family grew up in a church like that--I remember when I was little how I couldn't wear pants or make-up or cut my hair........Thank God we were delivered! :D

Okay anywayz, back to Paul and women--The reason Paul said all those things about women being silent in the church, is because the Jews had just reformed their faith. They went from practicing the Old Covenant, into the New Covenant--And because it was a transition period, the men still sat on one side, and the women sat on another. So while someone would be preaching and teaching the Word, one of the ladies or several of them, would be asking their husbands who sat ACROSS from them what that person meant during the service. It was disruptive! It took away from the order of the service, so that's why Paul said they should remain quiet.

As for wearing skirts and such, that goes along the lines of women should wear what women should wear and a man should wear what a man should wear......Darnit, I gotta get to bed. This is really interesting! I'll write more tomorrow! :D
I SAID THE BONDAGE THING TO HER!!! I'm not stupid after all! lolz :P :| I'm turning into PC99 :( jk ;)

I did use the argument that the Lord said not to let anyone put you into bondage thru control of what you can and can't do - the real problem I suppose is separating what God wants and what Paul believed to be the way of doing things...

The wearing of mens clothing and vice versa - they don't want me to grow out my hair :( But I'm doing it anyways because I'm not the one thinks those rules are really applicable today :D

EDIT: I'm not really complaining about the skirt thing :D I like how skirts look on her - I can't help it, but I'm a butt man :D I think the only thing I have a problem with in that area is not allowing her to have the option of wearing pants or not, especially when she freezes in winter :(

[Shortyland05]

hmm, an interesting delima. Some denominations of the Church worship God in thier ways, and others in others ways. I believe that if you do all the basic stuff like:

1. Acknologe that Jesus died for you on the cross for you
2. Ask him into your life
3. Worship God in what you do (doesnt just havta be singing)
4. follow his commandments
5. (any others ive forgotten)

You will be sweet with God. I dont think women cutting their hair would anger God.

[Protosschick99]

Exactly--Why would it?

You know how many times I've been told by other Christians that I am going to hell because my hair is cut and I wear make-up and jewelry? Too much--It's annoying.

Honestly even though some ppl are Christians, it doesn't matter--You have to be careful who you let speak into your life--Christian or not.

Because out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth does speak.

So what is it they are speaking about daily? Rules, rules, rules, and tradition? That is religion--Not Christianity. Christianity is a way of life--We show Christ through our actions and words--Our testamony is our life--Sometimes you have to just show it instead of speak it.

God got on me about that this week.....You don't have to talk all the time....Let your actions speak for you.....And how did I get on this? I don't know--But I felt led to say it :D

[hammocksleeper]

I don't have a problem with women being restricted like that, as long as they voluntarily enter into that religion or whatever.

I have a lot of respect for modest women, who choose to cover their shoulders or wear three-quarter-length sleeves and skirts below the knee in places like church. It's a matter of reverence to me, really. I don't think I'm Puritan or anything like that by any stretch of the imagination. But I like it when a girl has a little respect for herself.

[Doombringer64]

Misogyny is only the tip of the ice burg that is the asinine conundrum that is Paul. Probably the thing that gets my goat is when he advocates viewing his fellow man with contempt something Jesus, or at least the Jesus referred to in the Bible, did not and would not condone.



An interesting thought popped in my head. You could think of Paul as an early Pat Robertson who really isn’t about spreading the “good word” he just likes being on television.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

I don't have a problem with women being restricted like that, as long as they voluntarily enter into that religion or whatever.

I have a lot of respect for modest women, who choose to cover their shoulders or wear three-quarter-length sleeves and skirts below the knee in places like church. It's a matter of reverence to me, really. I don't think I'm Puritan or anything like that by any stretch of the imagination. But I like it when a girl has a little respect for herself.

well, the problem is that they don't have a choice in the matter of whether or not to follow those rules because the grandmother is very tight gripping on everyone :(

I like her modesty to be honest, but then I saw how they wanted her to dress and it was like half a step forward from being Amish almost...

[Leosam096]

So what is it they are speaking about daily? Rules, rules, rules, and tradition? That is religion--Not Christianity. Christianity is a way of life--We show Christ through our actions and words--Our testamony is our life--Sometimes you have to just show it instead of speak it.
well said Protosschick...heres a thought also from the Bible,for we battle some battles by using the Word of God.

-"Eveything is permissible for me"-but not everything is beneficial."Everything is permissible for me"-but i will not be mastered by anything.

we follow two types of rules that Paul is trying to say to us those times until today...prescriptive and descriptive.
prescriptive means that we follow what can be allowed to us for today like this drug works well for you...so and so.
descriptive means that we must follow it forever like the 10 commandments and Jesus' commands because it will keep us safe and uncorrupted for the rest of our lives.
God gave men and women rules on how to dress,live,and sacrifice before in the Old Testament,because during those times,they never had any rules.but today,everything is still permissible but not everything is beneficial.its ok to wear what we want to wear but we should think about how people would react and think about the clothes we wear.

today,women may wear jeans,have cut hair, and like that.its a good thing.

cheers.

EDIT:God checks the heart.He doesn't care about the outside appearance.

[Xenon]

Okay anywayz, back to Paul and women--The reason Paul said all those things about women being silent in the church, is because the Jews had just reformed their faith. They went from practicing the Old Covenant, into the New Covenant--And because it was a transition period, the men still sat on one side, and the women sat on another. So while someone would be preaching and teaching the Word, one of the ladies or several of them, would be asking their husbands who sat ACROSS from them what that person meant during the service. It was disruptive! It took away from the order of the service, so that's why Paul said they should remain quiet.That's pure invention. There is no evidence for this. You can theorize all you want, but I think Paul was onto something. I think God wants women to be feminine and silent. It's part of God's plan. I wouldn't argue with God. He might like, send a Semi to crash into you as a kind of wake-up call to get silent. God can do some freaky shit if you're disobedient. If you pick and choose the parts you wanna hear, God will smite thee!

Before you guys go bashing Paul, you might want to remember that he wrote 2/3 of the New Testament. The book you all supposedly believe in. I like it how Christians can pick and choose what they want to believe and not believe from the alleged "Word of God".

Hmmm... looks like someone removed the thing that just appends to your last post.

2000 Ftw

[Veeger]

Many people have attempted to crucify me for saying this (you should have been on the RSJ site when I told them this, lol), but when you are reading the Epistles (The New Testament, with the exception of the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation), you have to remember that these were letters, written to specific churches, and addressing specific situations. They were not written with the intent of mass-interpretation and reading.

Most of the epistles are very wise writings, and should be studied. But I disagree with reading them as "Word of God" texts. That is like reading a book by Dr. James Dobson and believing that it is the Word of God. No it's not! It is the very wise, and possibly Divinely inspired, writings of a well respected minister of the Lord. Does that mean he can't be wrong? Of course he can be wrong. And if he's wrong, it's clearly not the Word of God, seeing as God, by His very nature, is never wrong.

Timothy believed that Women should not be in minister positions. I do agree that Women should not be head pastors (not being sexist, by any means -- it's a simple fact that Men and Women are designed differently, physically and mentally, and that God created men specifically for leading, and women for caring, which are two very different things: there are exceptions to every rule, however), but does that mean I don't think women should be allowed to be Music Ministers? Or Assistant Pastors? No, there's no reason, spiritually or realistically, to deny them ministorial possibilities. There will always be someone out there that is better than you at something, and that someone could easily be a different gender than you.

God has, many times, used a Woman in the past. Ruth, for example, was a very powerful Judge, during a time that Women were expected, by both law and custom, to quietly work in the shadows. Ruth stood out as both an example, and an inspiration, to women of all ages and cultures.

[Kingscrab]

I don't have a problem with women being restricted like that, as long as they voluntarily enter into that religion or whatever. Riiiiight. How many people actually voluntarily enter their religion? The vast majority of people who are religious are raised into it from day one.
I have a lot of respect for modest women, who choose to cover their shoulders or wear three-quarter-length sleeves and skirts below the knee in places like church. It's a matter of reverence to me, really. I don't think I'm Puritan or anything like that by any stretch of the imagination. But I like it when a girl has a little respect for herself. Duh. You could say that about anyone who dresses appropriately for any special/formal occasion.

I don't think your daily choice of attire really reflects your true "self-respect"... it's simply a factor in how others percieve and stereotype you. (unless of course you choose to wear Zubas... in which case, i gots no respect for ya!) ;)

[TinyDancer]

You have to remember that these were letters, written to specific churches, and addressing specific situations. They were not written with the intent of mass-interpretation and reading.

Most of the epistles are very wise writings, and should be studied. But I disagree with reading them as "Word of God" texts. That is like reading a book by Dr. James Dobson and believing that it is the Word of God. No it's not! It is the very wise, and possibly Divinely inspired, writings of a well respected minister of the Lord. Does that mean he can't be wrong? Of course he can be wrong. And if he's wrong, it's clearly not the Word of God, seeing as God, by His very nature, is never wrong.


Completely ignoring the other part of your post which no matter what you say, I still find sexist..

If they weren't for mass interpretation and reading, why are they in the bible? The bible is for mass reading and interpretation, isn't it?

People keep going off about how it was Paul who was saying all these sexist things, not God. I never said God was the raging misogynist, now did I? I said Paul was, and I stand by that. The bible quotes are just helping that along.

It's things like this that made me lose faith in faith. All these arguements just seem to contridict themselves, and that's how it was with church preachings too. "God is all-forgiving and loves everyone and everything, but if you don't believe that, then you're going to burn in Hell eternally." Yeah, that makes sense.

[GenocideAlive]

I don't get it. Christianity is following the teachings of Christ, which are outlined in the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be the Holy Word of God, right? So when did that turn into a salad bar?

We psychoanalyze the writers (which were supposedly divinely inspired), we marginalize their texts, then we accuse them of various secondary motives for purposes of undermining their credibility and contribution. I say "we" and I really mean "you Christians", for those of you keeping score.

Anyway, this "debate" only highlights one of the myriad flaws in Christianity and its fragmented pop-culturist teachings. I'll spare everyone my treatise.

[Kingscrab]

I don't get it. Christianity is following the teachings of Christ, which are outlined in the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be the Holy Word of God, right? So when did that turn into a salad bar? *chuckle* Nice comparison. :tup:

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Completely ignoring the other part of your post which no matter what you say, I still find sexist..

If they weren't for mass interpretation and reading, why are they in the bible? The bible is for mass reading and interpretation, isn't it?

People keep going off about how it was Paul who was saying all these sexist things, not God. I never said God was the raging misogynist, now did I? I said Paul was, and I stand by that. The bible quotes are just helping that along.

you have throughly and utterly confused me concerning what your stance is now O_o

[quote=TinyDancer]It's things like this that made me lose faith in faith. All these arguements just seem to contridict themselves, and that's how it was with church preachings too. "God is all-forgiving and loves everyone and everything, but if you don't believe that, then you're going to burn in Hell eternally." Yeah, that makes sense. :confused:

[FallenLord]

Misogyny is only the tip of the ice burg that is the asinine conundrum that is Paul.Ephesians 5:25 ...one-dimensional character analysis = WTF?

[Doombringer64]

Your statement is a complete contradiction. I say there are many stains on the rug then you accuse me of saying there is only one.

By the way for all those reading this make sure you check the verses people quote. It is quite amazing how often you will find the nasty parts cut out.

Ephesians 5:21-33 NASB

Sure it does say love them, but it also says to subjugate them. Also note the last line. The wife must respect the man, not love him because it is believed that women are incapable of love or at least that their love is inferior to that of a man.

Also let's take a step back.

Ephesians 5:1-13 NASB

This is only one example of Paul telling his people to shun his fellow man.

[frazz]

I SAID THE BONDAGE THING TO HER!!! I'm not stupid after all! lolz :P :| I'm turning into PC99 :( jk ;)

I did use the argument that the Lord said not to let anyone put you into bondage thru control of what you can and can't do - the real problem I suppose is separating what God wants and what Paul believed to be the way of doing things...

The wearing of mens clothing and vice versa - they don't want me to grow out my hair :( But I'm doing it anyways because I'm not the one thinks those rules are really applicable today :D

EDIT: I'm not really complaining about the skirt thing :D I like how skirts look on her - I can't help it, but I'm a butt man :D I think the only thing I have a problem with in that area is not allowing her to have the option of wearing pants or not, especially when she freezes in winter :(
lay off the smilies:shiftyr:

[Veeger]

The Epistles are in the Bible because a collection of Catholic Priests (I believe they were Cardinals, but I could be wrong -- I'm a little sketchy on my History of late) decided they should be. We need to remember that the New Testament was not compiled until not very long ago (within the last 1,000 years). The Ancient Church (before the Middle Ages) did not have a standard text that they all taught from. They had the Torah, maybe one or two that were near a city with a large Jewish community might have some of the other Old Testament books, and then when the Gospels were written they were reproduced to most of the larger church congregations, but for the most part the typical, small gathering of Christians pretty much just had the Torah, and a copy of one of the Epistles.

They were included into the Bible because for a very, very long time, they were mostly all the churches had to teach from at all, barring the Old Testament (which is unfortunately vastly overlooked nowadays -- I get some of my best lessons from it). Again, this does not make it the Word of God, and because a gathering of men decided to include them into the collection of books does not make them Holy Writings.

As I said earlier, I'm not saying you shouldn't read them. Not by any means. Just remember while you are reading them that you are reading the words of a man. Not God.

And I challenge anyone to show me a contradiction in the Bible. I guarantee any "contradiction" is from a misunderstanding of the Scripture itself.

[FallenLord]

Your statement is a complete contradiction.QFT.

but it also says [for wives] to subjugate them[selves]Fixed; no forcing involved.

This is only one example of Paul telling his people to shun [the company of people who are bad influences.]Fixed.

because it is believed that women are incapable of love or at least that their love is inferior to that of a man.The only appropriate response: O RLY?

It is quite amazing how often you will find the nasty parts cut out.So far, you’ve warped Paul to create “nasty” parts.

[Kingscrab]

Just remember while you are reading them that you are reading the words of a man. Not God. I don't get it? Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? Hmmmm... Sounds like a dodge to me. Someone please pass the Thousand Island.

[Doombringer64]

QFT.

Fixed; no forcing involved.

Fixed.

The only appropriate response: O RLY?

So far, you’ve warped Paul to create “nasty” parts.

Interesting completely changing the words to fit your own ends. Sounds like something Paul would do.

[ScottieIWU]

I really have to second kingscrab on this one.

I was also kind of partial to this quote by Veeger:
[the OT] is unfortunately vastly overlooked nowadays -- I get some of my best lessons from itI got a lot of my lessons, too. When your creations suck, kill them all.

Anyway, Veeger, I will show you some contradictions if you so desire, but that is for another thread. So far there's been a good job by all keeping this one on topic.

[TinyDancer]

Completely ignoring the other part of your post which no matter what you say, I still find sexist..

If they weren't for mass interpretation and reading, why are they in the bible? The bible is for mass reading and interpretation, isn't it?

People keep going off about how it was Paul who was saying all these sexist things, not God. I never said God was the raging misogynist, now did I? I said Paul was, and I stand by that. The bible quotes are just helping that along.

you have throughly and utterly confused me concerning what your stance is now O_o

:confused:

I go away for a week and the thread dies...How did I confuse you?

The Epistles are in the Bible because a collection of Catholic Priests (I believe they were Cardinals, but I could be wrong -- I'm a little sketchy on my History of late) decided they should be. We need to remember that the New Testament was not compiled until not very long ago (within the last 1,000 years). The Ancient Church (before the Middle Ages) did not have a standard text that they all taught from. They had the Torah, maybe one or two that were near a city with a large Jewish community might have some of the other Old Testament books, and then when the Gospels were written they were reproduced to most of the larger church congregations, but for the most part the typical, small gathering of Christians pretty much just had the Torah, and a copy of one of the Epistles.

They were included into the Bible because for a very, very long time, they were mostly all the churches had to teach from at all, barring the Old Testament (which is unfortunately vastly overlooked nowadays -- I get some of my best lessons from it). Again, this does not make it the Word of God, and because a gathering of men decided to include them into the collection of books does not make them Holy Writings.

As I said earlier, I'm not saying you shouldn't read them. Not by any means. Just remember while you are reading them that you are reading the words of a man. Not God.

That doesn't correct me at all, they are in the bible, they're for mass reading and interpretation. This thread wasn't about saying God is or isn't a misogynistic pig. It's about Paul. A man. I was saying that a man, a very influential man in biblical history, was sexist. So were most men in the bible, but his are the teachings that are very revered and respected.

Hmm..contradictions in the bible...and I'm keeping strictly in the old testament here..


"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:01-17 (some versions say murder, others say kill. Generally it's taught as kill though.)

"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." Deuteronomy 22:20-21


That totally makes sense. No contradictions. Mhmm. *nods*

[FallenLord]

Governments have the authority to kill, especially to grant justice. Individuals do not. Genesis 9:6, Exodus, Deuteronomy, etc. You've just been sunday schooled. (I ought to be shot for that one.)

The laughable notion that God is less sexist than Paul is, of course, born of a truly contradictory assumption - namely, that certain portions of the Bible are not 'inspired.' (Specifically, whichever portions are deemed offensive to whatever erratic incarnation of contemporary society that has currently infested the Church.) If Paul was not inspired, by the same argument, none of the Bible was inspired. Which, naturally, is in perfect harmony with the nomenclature 'Word of God.'

After all, if one can't pick and choose (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:3-4;&version=31;) what "God's Word" includes (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=4&verse=14&version=31&context=verse) based on the whims of fools (http://www.tatumweb.com/churchrodent/terms/councilcarthage.htm)...then there's really no point in maintaining the Christian facade at all.

(Btw, God is sexist. Genesis 2:18, Old Testament, etc.)

[GenocideAlive]

God is sexist
That's what I'm talking about. Makes me want to marry a good, Christian woman so I can boss her around and make her walk around barefoot and pregnant. I bet the Bible even has little clauses for "yea, some horseplay upside her crown if she starts getting flip, verily".

Damn, there are some things that the Christians just get right.

[FallenLord]

No, see, there are a couple of little problems with that. Colossians 3:19 Ephesians 5:25.

But then there's always sex (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%207:3-5;&version=31;).

[GenocideAlive]

No, see, there are a couple of little problems with that. Colossians 3:19 Ephesians 5:25.

But then there's always sex (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%207:3-5;&version=31;).
You've never heard a parent say "I only do this because I love you" and variants thereof--right before they hit a child? I think God is advocating popping wives pretty clearly. He says "Love that bitch with the right, then with the left."

[Sargallikus]

I'm amazed by this, because there is such a simple point that those who claim Paul was misogynist keep overlooking. The Bible, was divinely inspired throughout, and is in perfect harmony, so you can't say that because Paul wrote that women should not stand up and teach the congregation, or openly question the teachers themselves while the meeting is in progress, that Paul, and by extension God, was oppresive towards women when there are so many verses where Paul advocated respect and dignity be afforded to women, in direct conflict with the common practices of the day.

Also, if you note the rest of 1 Corinthians 14, would you say that Paul was oppressing prophets and those who speak in tongues? For example, "If someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. But if there is no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God." - 1 Corinthians 14:27, 28 The objective of the meetings of the Christians was so that they would be upbuilt as they worshipped God, so a man or woman speaking in a language that no one could understand would not assist in upbuilding the congregation.

Similarly, if some sisters in the congregation were challenging what was being said there, they would have been promoting disorder, whereas Paul was helping them to respect the headship principal of 1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is god." By respecting this counsel they would help the meetings to take place in a decent and orderly manner that would benefit eveyone. That did not, however, mean that women were not supposed to speak at all in the congregation. There would be occasions where women did speak, but wore a headcovering to signify their respect of headship. That doctrine preserves order amongst the congregation but does not suppress women in any meaningful way. Not only that, but women who claimed to be disciples of Christ had just as much responsibilty to preach the good news about Christ to the people around them, that was not oppresive.

Most of the problems today come from people who choose to misinterperet what Paul said to fit what they want. This is seen clearly in the way that some groups restrain the women to a certain kind of dress. Paul of course said that women should be modest in their dress rather than wearing many decorative or expensive things, but that meant that self-restraint should be excercised on the part of the woman, and modest rather than outlandish attire should be worn. Does that mean that women should never wear pants? Not necessarily. That is someone trying to infer things they ought not. Paul merely stated a principal that would have applied to men as well; dress appropriately if you claim to serve God! It would be disrespectful to God, if anyone, man or woman, wore clothing that would impugn their character and thus the God they claimed to worship.

[Kingscrab]

Most of the problems today come from people who choose to misinterperet what Paul said to fit what they want. With all of it's contradictions, this happens all to easily. Everyone here can surely quote some obscure passage to support ANY argument. To base your worship on such a "divine" work is just silly. Might as well just make some shit up because you could probably quote it somewhere in the bible. Everybody is right! Really, why bother at all.

Judges 13:17-18

[FallenLord]

He says "Love that bitch with the right, then with the left."GA wins (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%202:2-3;&version=31;) the thread.

[Veeger]

"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:01-17 (some versions say murder, others say kill. Generally it's taught as kill though.)

"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." Deuteronomy 22:20-21


You dismissed your own argument from the start, Tiny. You admit that some teach "murder", while others teach "kill". The original Hebrew states, "murder", which I believe we will all agree is very different then killing. Murder clearly requires an intent to end the life of another without justification.

After the last of the Crusades, soldiers returned home and found they had lost their lands, mostly due to back-taxes, and without land they could not produce food for themselves, and subsequentially produce anything to sell at market. Out of necessity, they started forming bands of vagabonds, attacking any peasant/merchant/noble that passed their way, killed them, and stole their possessions. The local Lords and Knights were vastly outnumbered, and civil order fell apart. In response, the Catholic Church issued the "Seven Deadly Sins", under the belief that if certain sins were deemed more dangerous than others (like killing and stealing, for example), the general public would stop performing them out of fear for their own souls.

It was decided that "do not kill" sounded more provocative than "do not murder", so in the issuance the word "kill" was used, and the Priests began to preach it as "do not kill" instead of murder (this was before the Bible was produced in the common language, so peasant and noble alike had no choice but to trust the Priest). The violence did drop dramatically after this.

I know, I know: I didn't quote any referrences. I'm getting onto Google right now to see if I can find a couple of sources so you can see that I'm not just making all of this up.

[FallenLord]

Veeger:Governments have the authority to kill, especially to grant justice. Individuals do not. Genesis 9:6, Exodus, Deuteronomy, etc.

[GenocideAlive]

You dismissed your own argument from the start, Tiny. You admit that some teach "murder", while others teach "kill". The original Hebrew states, "murder", which I believe we will all agree is very different then killing. Murder clearly requires an intent to end the life of another without justification.
I'm at loathe to say so, but this has to be the weakest, most impotent undirected argument I've ever seen. First you try to split hairs between "kill" and "murder" for no apparent reason, then you go straight off into left field about crusaders.

Let's try 4 paragraph blurbs on topic, this time: Paul and Sexism--GO!

[Veeger]

The difference between murder and killing is not splitting hairs.

If you kill someone in self defense, is it murder? No? Then there is clearly a difference.

[Kingscrab]

I'm at loathe to say so, but this has to be the weakest, most impotent undirected argument I've ever seen. First you try to split hairs between "kill" and "murder" for no apparent reason, then you go straight off into left field about crusaders.

Let's try 4 paragraph blurbs on topic, this time: Paul and Sexism--GO! Bah! Killing isn't murder if you can convince yourself you have a good enough reason to do it! :rolleyes:

GA +1 / Veeger +0 :_owned:

[FallenLord]

Hey, Veeger.

Because you have not listened to my words, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=25&verse=8&version=31&context=verse) GA has owned you. Now is always the time to use accurate (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:4;&version=31;) refutations. (Remember, one perfect in knowledge is with you (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2036:4;&version=31;).)

[Kingscrab]

Now is always the time to use accurate (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:4;&version=31;) refutations. Indeed. Wait... Killing is not specifically mentioned as a punishment there... Hold on... let's continue to read on to Romans 13:9-10

Love, not death, will save the day! Hooray! :P

[Protosschick99]

Ephesians 5:25 ...one-dimensional character analysis = WTF?

Glad you brought this up!

Often times, many Christians believe things that are in fact unscriptural when it comes to marriage and relationships.

Ppl must understand that not every man is the head of every woman. The husband is the head of his wife, another man is not the head of some other man's wife--That's not right.

When it says in the Word that a man should love his wife as Christ loves the church--It means that he should love her unconditionally--Because Christ loved us so much, He gave His life for us! The husband should love His wife like that--Unconditionally--He should love the blessing that God gave to him :)

But at the same time, the wife submits to her husband and honors him. She respects him and he her--He too submits to her therefore, they submit to each other in love.

Husbands must also understand that his wife does not belong to him. Wives are not their husbands property. And husbands are not their wives property. We are our own person, and we can make our own decisions, but once you are in agreement and choose to become one together, you both will be holding eachother responsible and accountable for the decisions and actions you make.

Men and women need to understand that once you are joined in a union of marriage, a man or woman claiming that it is "his/her right" because they are married to have sex--Does not mean ya gotta get crazy and tell them to submit. You are humans, people, not property. The only One that we belong to is God. We are His property, because our body is a temple unto the Lord. It is not our own but God's. So we must care for it.

Now don't get me wrong, God delights in the fact that we find love and get married. But when it is gone about the right way--God's glory is all over it :)

Like the relationship with my boyfriend and I. I enjoy his company soo much! He treats me like a queen. He tells me how beautiful I am every day that we are together, opens doors for me, helps me to my seat at church, supports me in everything I do, respects me, respects my parents, is a commited man of God, spirit-filled, calls me daily to see how my day goes, serves in church and worships with all his heart during praise and worship.

Now that I am in a relationship, the Lord has told me that I must be an example to younger girls in how a godly relationship should be. And that means not putting myself in questionable situations. And Chris feels the same way. He respects me and doesn't try to get all up on me, lolz :P I do the same to him. We haven't even held hands yet or kissed (Well, it's only been what? Three weeks? We are taking it slow...:D) and I am thankful that he doesn't try to force himself on me--But he wouldn't anyway because that isn't what he is about.

Now where was I going with this? Oh yes.....I was demonstrating my bf and I with godly relationships and all that stuff.....

I don't think Paul was sexist. He wrote a bunch of wonderful things about various women in the church. And his guidelines on marriage are wonderful! I agree with it whole heartedly.

There were many different women who served in ministry with Paul and he commended them for it. If he was sexist, why would he let them serve? God calls both men and women to serve in the kingdom. Now obviously it would be better if a man led a "Men's Prayer Meeting" or a woman a "Woman's Prayer Meeting" because women would feel uncomfortable with a man and men uncomfortable with a woman. Now if no man could be found and the only qualified person was a woman--Then a woman would lead while everyone believes God for the right man of God to take over.

You just gotta be ready in season and out of season.

Gosh I just went everywhere with my post.......Questions anyone? Or comments? I'll answer anything concerning the Word of God if I do not have knowledge of it, I'll let ya know :)

Sorry if I went off topic....:P

[FallenLord]

Husbands must also understand that his wife does not belong to him. Wives are not their husbands property. And husbands are not their wives property.Paul says: "O RLY?" (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%207:4;&version=31;)

I don't think Paul was sexist.Sexism means men and women are different.

Otherwise I can't really say I disagree with the post.

[GenocideAlive]

Ppl must understand that not every man is the head of every woman. The husband is the head of his wife, another man is not the head of some other man's wife--That's not right.

But at the same time, the wife submits to her husband and honors him. She respects him and he her--He too submits to her therefore, they submit to each other in love.

We are our own person, and we can make our own decisions, but once you are in agreement and choose to become one together, you both will be holding eachother responsible and accountable for the decisions and actions you make.
Selected blurbs quoted for making NO FUCKING SENSE.
When it says in the Word that a man should love his wife as Christ loves the church--It means that he should love her unconditionally--Because Christ loved us so much, He gave His life for us! The husband should love His wife like that--Unconditionally--He should love the blessing that God gave to him :)
So if his wife becomes a Satanist and starts trying to torture and poison him & their children, he should continue to love her otherwise he's not a good Christian :).
Men and women need to understand that once you are joined in a union of marriage, a man or woman claiming that it is "his/her right" because they are married to have sex--Does not mean ya gotta get crazy and tell them to submit.
Colloquial language aside, Paul/Saul clearly states that you are both to have sex save for mutual agreement to not have sex. This means you can tell your wife to put out and the Bible backs you up. The good book says don't be coy woman, get on your back.
You are humans, people, not property. The only One that we belong to is God. We are His property
Thanks for clearing that up. We're humans, not property. We're property.
Like the relationship with my boyfriend and I.
Hey look! Protosschick turned a discussion about Paul's sexism in the Bible into an excuse to talk about herself! :o *shock* She's never done this before! How can we all make ourselves more like you, PC? That's what I want to know. I mean, screw the Bible; cut out the middle man, I always say.
He wrote a bunch of wonderful things about various women in the church. And his guidelines on marriage are wonderful! I agree with it whole heartedly.
Please offer something besides your gushing opinion to the forum.
Now obviously it would be better if a man led a "Men's Prayer Meeting" or a woman a "Woman's Prayer Meeting" because women would feel uncomfortable with a man and men uncomfortable with a woman.
That's like saying all women would prefer female gynocologists. It's a generalization and swervingly inaccurate.

[Sargallikus]

So if his wife becomes a Satanist and starts trying to torture and poison him & their children, he should continue to love her otherwise he's not a good Christian :).

At the risk of getting in the middle of something between you and PC, I would just go with some OT justice and stone her. :)

Colloquial language aside, Paul/Saul clearly states that you are both to have sex save for mutual agreement to not have sex. This means you can tell your wife to put out and the Bible backs you up. The good book says don't be coy woman, get on your back.

I disagree that a man has a God given right to force his wife to have sex with him, but dude, if you don't want to 'put out' then don't get married. That simple.

[GenocideAlive]

I disagree that a man has a God given right to force his wife to have sex with him, but dude, if you don't want to 'put out' then don't get married. That simple.
I really don't recall stating that a man is the sole owner to the sex button as you are implying. I stated that either can force the other to have sex, and the only way they can demur from regular sex is by mutual agreement.

[Sargallikus]

I really don't recall stating that a man is the sole owner to the sex button as you are implying. I stated that either can force the other to have sex, and the only way they can demur from regular sex is by mutual agreement.

Well, even if you weren't implying that (I don't know, I didn't mean to imply that you were...), what I was trying to state in a nutshell was that Paul wasn't saying that Mr. or Mrs. Christian were allowed to force their spouse to have sex with them. Rather, he was making a valid point that if you love someone and have entered a vow of marriage with them, then unless you both agree to abstain from sex, you should not deny your mate's desire to get it on with you, not that your mate can force the issue. Paul was saying that one should not use sex as, say, a tool to get what they want, i.e. "I don't feel like it tonight honey, but if you buy me a new purse/motorcycle/whatever then maybe..." which would not only be unloving, but also, the denial of sex by one party may lead the other to be tempted to engage in unclean practices like going to strip clubs, downloading porn, or worse, commiting adultery.

Well that wasn't exactly a nutshell, but thats what I was saying... :)

[GenocideAlive]

Paul wasn't saying that Mr. or Mrs. Christian were allowed to force their spouse to have sex with them. Rather, he was making a valid point that if you love someone and have entered a vow of marriage with them, then unless you both agree to abstain from sex, you should not deny your mate's desire to get it on with you, not that your mate can force the issue.
I'm not following the difference you're positing. You're going to have to do a better job than splitting hairs.

[hammocksleeper]

I'm not following the difference you're positing. You're going to have to do a better job than splitting hairs.

Well I just entered this discussion so you're probably going to flame me, but to me it looks like #1, you must submit to the desires of your spouse, however #2, it is not OK for your spouse to express those desires in a way that it would make you feel obligated to submit to them in a way as outlined in #1. tricky indeed

[Kingscrab]

Well I just entered this discussion so you're probably going to flame me, but to me it looks like #1, you must submit to the desires of your spouse, however #2, it is not OK for your spouse to express those desires in a way that it would make you feel obligated to submit to them in a way as outlined in #1. tricky indeed This concept makes me sick to my stomach. Tricky? Why? How about simply saying that a person should not be obligated to submit to the desires of anyone. Easy.

[Sargallikus]

A man or woman cannot force their spouse to have sex with them. They cannot say "God said have sex with me so you have to do it."

On the other hand, both the husband and wife should be willing to have sex with their spouse without the other having to twist their arm all the time. If you love your spouse then you should be willing to fulfill their 'needs' for intimacy even if you may not need as much intimacy yourself. When people, as Christians, get married they figuratively become one flesh, so rather than being selfish, they should both be sensitive to the others needs. In line with that, they should both work things out so that neither of them feels slighted, the one who may want sex more should be willing to tone down their desires and the one who needs sex less should be willing to give more of themselves.

[GenocideAlive]

A man or woman cannot force their spouse to have sex with them. They cannot say "God said have sex with me so you have to do it."

On the other hand, both the husband and wife should be willing to have sex with their spouse without the other having to twist their arm all the time.
Do these two statements seem contradictory to anybody else? You're either being obligated to have sex or you're not--you keep saying that they're not obligated, but they should be willing. That immediately implies that if they aren't willing, they're doing something wrong. If they're doing something wrong then that implies that they're incorrect in their demure from sex.

I'm fairly certain you're standing on a crumbling foundation here, so I'm trying to cut you a break. I also note that PC99 and others left you hanging here, but them's the breaks. ...not that PC99 would really help your case, here.

[Sargallikus]

Do these two statements seem contradictory to anybody else? You're either being obligated to have sex or you're not--you keep saying that they're not obligated, but they should be willing. That immediately implies that if they aren't willing, they're doing something wrong. If they're doing something wrong then that implies that they're incorrect in their demure from sex.

I'm fairly certain you're standing on a crumbling foundation here, so I'm trying to cut you a break. I also note that PC99 and others left you hanging here, but them's the breaks. ...not that PC99 would really help your case, here.

Fine, fine, I forfeit. I guess it may be splitting hairs to differentiate between willingness and obligation, and in that case I say that Christians are at least somewhat obligated to have sex if they are married. I only meant to differentiate between being obliged to have sex with your spouse in line with scripture, and your spouse essentially being able to rape you if you wouldn't have sex willingly, which is entirely against scripture, although you seemed to be implying that that was the case which is probably why I argued over the issue.

[GenocideAlive]

I only meant to differentiate between being obliged to have sex with your spouse in line with scripture, and your spouse essentially being able to rape you if you wouldn't have sex willingly
Difference?

[Sargallikus]

Difference?

Obviously you will never see my point so whatever... If you don't want to follow the scriptural guidelines found in the Bible, its simple; don't be a Christian. If you are a Christian and don't ever want to have sex then don't get married. The difference between being obligated to have sex now and then with your spouse or whatever you want to call it, as a Christian mind you, and being raped, is that you entered Christianity willing and by choice, not only that, but you can reject Christianity at any time. You're free to make that choice, you bring yourself under these requirements freely, and you can leave freely. Simple as that.

[TinyDancer]

You entered Christianity willing and by choice, not only that, but you can reject Christianity at any time. You're free to make that choice, you bring yourself under these requirements freely, and you can leave freely. Simple as that.


People (like myself) who were baptised as babies didn't enter it by choice, and most don't agree with the teachings, but feel obligated to stay due to family pressures, laziness, desperation, etc. Sure you can leave, don't worry about that thing that most churches like to hold above your head, eternal damnation probably never happened to anyone anyway. ;)

Some people get over it like I did, I was supposed to get confirmed Catholic (and don't diss me for being Catholic please, and tell me all the things wrong with Catholicism, if I didn't know them, I wouldn't be saying this at all), my family was looking forward to that, I had teachers and friends and priests all pressuring me, and on the day all my friends got drafted into the Catholic faith, I went to the Renaissance festival. Great fun, but no one seemed to think so but me. Hard one to explain to friends you've had since Kindergarten, who all thought you were a goody-two shoes and a perfect Christian because you knew how to spout off the right answers in Sunday school.

It's not always as simple as you seem to think it is.

[Kingscrab]

If you are a Christian and don't ever want to have sex then don't get married. The difference between being obligated to have sex now and then with your spouse or whatever you want to call it, as a Christian mind you, and being raped, is that you entered Christianity willing and by choice, not only that, but you can reject Christianity at any time. So, let me get this straight:
Marrying a Christian = you are consenting to being raped by your spouse. You can get out of that situation by rejecting Christianity though. And God is okay with that?

Very nice.

[Sargallikus]

People (like myself) who were baptised as babies didn't enter it by choice, and most don't agree with the teachings, but feel obligated to stay due to family pressures, laziness, desperation, etc. Sure you can leave, don't worry about that thing that most churches like to hold above your head, eternal damnation probably never happened to anyone anyway. ;)

Some people get over it like I did, I was supposed to get confirmed Catholic (and don't diss me for being Catholic please, and tell me all the things wrong with Catholicism, if I didn't know them, I wouldn't be saying this at all), my family was looking forward to that, I had teachers and friends and priests all pressuring me, and on the day all my friends got drafted into the Catholic faith, I went to the Renaissance festival. Great fun, but no one seemed to think so but me. Hard one to explain to friends you've had since Kindergarten, who all thought you were a goody-two shoes and a perfect Christian because you knew how to spout off the right answers in Sunday school.

It's not always as simple as you seem to think it is.

I feel sorry for anyone who is too wrapped up in family pressure and such, it never seemed right to me when some churches baptize infants, because it should be a choice. So yes, it is not always that simple, but life isn't simple. Its hard to break out of the crime ridden inner city of places like Chicago, but if you get arrested you can't say that you just couldn't leave because of friends and family pressuring you to stay in that environment and expect not to go to jail for whatever crime you commited while being there. It takes strong will to rise above adversity, and sometimes that adversity hits closer to home than others, literally.

And no that was not intended to be a comparison between the Catholic church and the criminal elements of society...

So, let me get this straight:
Marrying a Christian = you are consenting to being raped by your spouse. You can get out of that situation by rejecting Christianity though. And God is okay with that?

Very nice.

NO! What everyone seems to think, at least from my understanding, is that you must have sex whenever your spouse wants to whether you like it or not. That is not what Paul was saying. He was saying that, if you get married, you have to have sex now and then, you can't take a personal vow of celibacy after you get married unless the other person agrees to that. You also cannot withhold sex as a means of getting what you want or punishing your spouse for making you mad. Finally, it would be unloving to leave your spouse for months at a time to go on business trips and such, thus depriving both of you of the option to have sex, unless the other spouse agreed to it.

No rape. No rule that says you have to have sex this many times.

[FallenLord]

Time for a Fallen Lord Reality Check™.

Marriage is about making sacrifices out of love and putting your spouse's interests ahead of yours. (Love your wife as Christ loved the Church (get it? get it?).)

There is no implication that sex can be demanded or forced or obligated. Or that anything should be demanded or forced or obligated in the context of marriage. Love makes no demands. Love does things out of love. (Pretty sure Paul never talks about love.) 1 Corinthians 13:4-6

Legalistic rationalism, of course, defies love. Love is not rational. It is not rational for me to come home, dead tired from work, and still want to make time for my wife. It is not rational for my wife to want to have sex as much as I do. Etc. Marriage means doing things you wouldn't otherwise do because you love your spouse. (Note that I am not married.)

Accordingly, the disconnected, anti-realistic, hypothetical rationalistic/legalistic babble that's plagued some of these posts is disgusting. Everyone here is perfectly aware of each obvious truth I've been 'forced' to state. (Yes, people, the emperor has no clothes.) Everyone knows that (successful) marriage is about compromise and sacrificing your own interests for those of your spouse out of love. (Not demanding that they cave to your "rights.") Even if you aren't married, you know that.
And yet, because of blind, asinine partisanship, some are compelled to pretend that Paul is talking about something other than the selfless love between a husband and wife. And it's still obvious he's talking about that even if the context is eviscerated.

Guess what. Selfless love in a marriage is objectively good.

Give the Bible credit where credit is due. Bastards.

[Sargallikus]

Well crap, you said that so much better than I obviously could have...

[Kingscrab]

Marriage is about making sacrifices out of love and putting your spouse's interests ahead of yours. (Love your wife as Christ loved the Church (get it? get it?).) There is no implication that sex can be demanded or forced or obligated. I guess that all depends on motivation and reasoning behind a person's specific interperatation. Back in 100 AD (ex.) you really think marriage was mainly about love? Riiiight. How about procreation and survival. Here's a reality check for ya; it took women almost 2000 years to get any proper rights in society, do you think some guys who wrote a book of "holy rules" back in primitive times were really worried about love? When a guy's life expectancy is generaly between 30 and 40, i tend to doubt it. Women, like it or not, it was time to crank out the babies. Give the Bible credit where credit is due. Bastards. Genesis 3:16 This new feature DOES rule!

Genesis 29:32 Have babies and your husband will love you!
Genesis 30:20 I mean, LOTS of babies! Yay!
Numbers 30:10-11 Always get permission first!

Seriously, how much time you got? I could search engine this shit all day...

[FallenLord]

were really worried about love?I'm sorry. Are facts getting in the way of your beliefs? Paul said what he said. His words require no interpretation. Of course, partisan Christian-haters will continue to warp and misuse them to fulfill their need to believe that the Bible is an evil book.

Fortunately, such fantasies are easy to dispel. It's painful, I know. But if you didn't want the fact that the Bible has good stuff in it shoved in your face, you should have kept your partisan bullshit to yourself.

By the way. It's possible you're having difficulty differentiating between how marriage was/is and how Paul said marriage should be. Here's another reality check for ya; Paul was actually correcting the contemporary view of marriage, where husbands owned their wives and made sure they knew it. Of course, now we've swung in the opposite direction; marriage is no longer between a husband and a wife, it's between two husbands. One of whom happens to have a vagina and PMS.

Seriously, how much time you got? I could search engine this shit all day...Last time I checked, Paul didn't write anything in the OT. Or is dodging all you've got?

[Kingscrab]

Last time I checked, Paul didn't write anything in the OT. Or is dodging all you've got? You're right. I wasn't refering to Paul. Sorry. I believe I responded to your comment "Give the Bible credit where credit is due." My response was to that, and in the context of women waving shit for rights in the old world. I'll say it again though, if you can pick it apart so easily and use what you like from it, what is the point of it having any holy value? Own your wife, don't own your wife... Blah, Blah. Which is it? Discard the passages you don't like i guess. It is an interesting historical document though, yes, with some good things in it. I'll give it that much credit. *shrug*

[FallenLord]

In case you're not familiar with the story of Jacob, he got tricked into marrying two sisters. (Do you feel sorry for him already?) Leah was the sister he got tricked into marrying, and he didn't love her; she thought that having lots of kids would help. That is an example of an issue contemporary to that time. And, believe it or not, it isn't in the Law.

...so which of the Laws enumerated in the Bible suggests that husbands shouldn't love their wives and should instead treat them like shit? Or that a husband's love should be proportional to how many sons his wife has? I'm not picking apart the Bible at all. Paul (and Jesus) just clarified some of the issues that Jewish legalism never quite fully grasped. Like that the bottom line of the Law is love.

So bring it on, son.

[GenocideAlive]

Time for a Fallen Lord Reality Check™. How cute, you've given your brand of bullshit its own name. Did I say bullshit? I meant fertilizer.
Marriage is about making sacrifices out of love and putting your spouse's interests ahead of yours. (Love your wife as Christ loved the Church (get it? get it?).) When did we start using Man and Woman interchangeabley with "spouse"?
There is no implication that sex can be demanded or forced or obligated. Or that anything should be demanded or forced or obligated in the context of marriage. Love makes no demands. Love does things out of love. (Pretty sure Paul never talks about love.) 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 WE. Seems to me there is an obligation on the part of both spouses to do as the other wants with their body. But hey, they don't have to do it, and they can't be forced to do it, so it's not rape, right? Right?
forced, coerced, or manipulated sexual contact between an adult male and an adult female
Oops! Coercion and manipulation counts. As in, stating that it's their good, Christian duty to put out. Sounds like the shit just hit the fan. Oh, I'm sorry, I mean FallenLord's Reality Check Fertilizer.
Legalistic rationalism, of course, defies love. Love is not rational. It is not rational for me to come home, dead tired from work, and still want to make time for my wife. It is not rational for my wife to want to have sex as much as I do. Etc. Marriage means doing things you wouldn't otherwise do because you love your spouse. (Note that I am not married.)
We're talking about the Bible and Paul being a sexist. We're not talking about legalistic rationalism, but thanks for your swerving commentary on bullshit. Even if you want to try to tack this discombobulated random groping as some sort of relevant commentary on marriage, you're failing as miserably as with your worthless, generic "selfless love in marriage is objectively good" statement. Real poignant. :rolleyes:
Accordingly, the disconnected, anti-realistic, hypothetical rationalistic/legalistic babble that's plagued some of these posts is disgusting. Everyone here is perfectly aware of each obvious truth I've been 'forced' to state. (Yes, people, the emperor has no clothes.) Everyone knows that (successful) marriage is about compromise and sacrificing your own interests for those of your spouse out of love. (Not demanding that they cave to your "rights.") Even if you aren't married, you know that.
And yet, because of blind, asinine partisanship, some are compelled to pretend that Paul is talking about something other than the selfless love between a husband and wife. And it's still obvious he's talking about that even if the context is eviscerated.
That's funny, because I know of about 2-3 different sects of Christianity that took a lot of what Paul was saying quite literally, including Link's girlfriend's. Of course, we could immediately marginalize them and say that they're not mainstream Christianity, but then hey--mainstream Christians drink, fuck strangers, and do whatever the hell they want anyway.

It's always hilarious when one person finds a convienent explanation for the Bible's ambiguous wording and then immediately parades it up and down as being the one, whole "truth" meanwhile blasting everyone around them for offering any resistance. Fanatics, yay! I bet you and Muhammed could have some great discussions.

I recall when Chicks were popular and all references to "Magog" or any impending doom references immediately were equated to "Russia". In 1940, I'm sure "Magog" was Germany, in 1960 it was "Russia", and now it's probably either China or the Middle East.

[FallenLord]

We're talking about the Bible and Paul being a sexist. We're not talking about legalistic rationalismWhen you selfishly/asininely screech about your spouse's "obligations," we call that "legalistic rationalism."

...as with your worthless, generic "selfless love in marriage is objectively good" statement.Where you burned in a relationship?

That's funny, because I know of about 2-3 different sects of Christianity that took a lot of what Paul was saying quite literally, including Link's girlfriend's. Of course, we could immediately marginalize them and say that they're not mainstream Christianity,Way ahead of you, son. I simply refuted their false position with concise, flawless logic. The answer is love, which Paul talks about incessantly - especially in other places where marriage is discussed. Bastardizing Paul's context and overall message to squeeze out the love because of pathetic, asinine partisanship just gets ya schooled. Buh-bye now.

[GenocideAlive]

When you selfishly/asininely screech about your spouse's "obligations," we call that "legalistic rationalism."
1. I never mentioned my spouse.
2. I never said that my spouse has any "obligations" in the way of sex.
3. "We" doesn't mean "I".
4. Considering #1 and #2, you've thereby invalidated your own basis for bringing up legalistic rationalism.
Where [sic] you burned in a relationship?
Ooh--naked ad hominem. Par for the course, though. This is FL.
Way ahead of you, son. I simply refuted their false position with concise, flawless logic. The answer is love, which Paul talks about incessantly - especially in other places where marriage is discussed. Bastardizing Paul's context and overall message to squeeze out the love because of pathetic, asinine partisanship just gets ya schooled. Buh-bye now.
Yes, I especially like the part where you sponsor your own shitstorm and then hi-five yourself a la eighth grade at the end. :rolleyes:

Nice dodge. "Son".

[FallenLord]

Damnit, I've once again reduced you to mindless flaming, playing stupid, and cries of "No, you're wrong."

Anyway, QFT: The answer is love, which Paul talks about incessantly - especially in other places where marriage is discussed. Bastardizing Paul's context and overall message to squeeze out the love because of pathetic, asinine partisanship just gets ya schooled.
In other words, the laughable notion that Paul has ordered spouses to demand sex of each other exists only when one finds it convenient to ignore Paul's lengthy discussions on the nature of love, including its application to marriage. A convenience (as stated) born of blind, pathetic, asinine partisanship.

I never mentioned my spouse.No one mentioned your "spouse." I prefer the equally valid and contextually accurate interpretation of my statement. Namely, one involving the 'general' you. Of course, no pretense of semantic ineptitude is too great when real arguments are out of stock.

Ooh--naked ad hominem.One can't help but chuckle at the clever synergy; you flame because you have nothing to say, I flame to give you something to say. Honestly, if I indulged each of your little rude attacks or childish invectives, this thread would be about three times longer.

Where [sic]Now that's just low.

[GenocideAlive]

Damnit, I've once again reduced you to mindless flaming, playing stupid, and cries of "No, you're wrong."
You're more than welcome to point these instances out; of course, that you'd say this without doing so, speaks.
Anyway, QFT: The answer is love, which Paul talks about incessantly - especially in other places where marriage is discussed. Bastardizing Paul's context and overall message to squeeze out the love because of pathetic, asinine partisanship just gets ya schooled.
In other words, the laughable notion that Paul has ordered spouses to demand sex of each other exists only when one finds it convenient to ignore Paul's lengthy discussions on the nature of love, including its application to marriage. A convenience (as stated) born of blind, pathetic, asinine partisanship.
Let's see...you say my argument's laughable, you call me an ass (twice), you accuse me of being partisan (twice), you call me "blind", you call me "pathetic", you start touting your ability to "school" people, and you say that I'm taking Paul's argument out of context. Whew--it's difficult to keep up with what you're accusing me of doing vs. what you're actually doing.
No one mentioned your "spouse." I prefer the equally valid and contextually accurate interpretation of my statement. Namely, one involving the 'general' you. Of course, no pretense of semantic ineptitude is too great when real arguments are out of stock.
Please, for the purposes of this discussion, let's avoid plural nominatives. Let's assume that "you" means the person to whom you are speaking, and not an all-purpose pronoun that you can flip back and forth at will. I think it's fairly safe to assume that few people here are married. You give yourself a lot of credit in terms of "airtight" and "flawless" logic--start trying to earn some of those titles.
One can't help but chuckle at the clever synergy; you flame because you have nothing to say, I flame to give you something to say. Honestly, if I indulged each of your little rude attacks or childish invectives, this thread would be about three times longer.
Given your first and second paragraphs, this statement says a great deal about you and your argument. But then, as I'm sure anyone whom has heard you speak at length, "talk the talk" is more your creed than "walk the walk". This post, as most of yours, is around 5% content and 95% showmanship; it could have been iterated with one sentence. "Style over substance" wasn't mean to be taken literally.

I grow bored with every religious conversation in the IR being drafted as an unwitting participant in your elaborate attempts to stuff your bloated ego.

[FallenLord]

Let's see...you say my argument's laughable, you call me an ass (twice), you accuse me of being partisan (twice), you call me "blind", you call me "pathetic", you start touting your ability to "school" people, and you say that I'm taking Paul's argument out of context. Whew--it's difficult to keep up with what you're accusing me of doing vs. what you're actually doing.Inasmuch as this kindergarten-level resolution succeeds (among other things) in clarifying that I said what I said, the self-evident problem seems to be that I'm going to fast for you. Let's analyze my statements with the purpose of responding rather than dodging.

The answer is love, which Paul talks about incessantly - especially in other places where marriage is discussed.
Obvious and irrefutable.

Bastardizing Paul's context and overall message to squeeze out the love...
Since it's already been established that, elsewhere, Paul both ties marriage directly to love and discusses the importance of love in great detail, it is clear that any un-loving "interpretation" of 1 Corinthians 7 is an evisceration of his context and overall message.

However, rather than vainly waiting for you to dig your own grave through an acknowledgment, I went on to describe possible explanations for your position. (I suppose I could have included "GA is incapable of considering/analyzing multiple blocks of writing simultaneously." But...)

partisanship
Anyone gifted with "critical thinking" could easily deduce that 1 Corinthians 7 must be considered in light of Paul's other works. Unfortunately, when a party has a predetermined viewpoint on the subject and refuses to admit error, objective critical thinking is often substituted for a combination of illogical silliness and word spin. (Like now.)

Be sure you properly differentiate between "partisan behavior" and "being a partisan." It goes without saying (yet recent comments dictate prudence on my part) that both of us are partisans. You being an atheist, I being a confessional Lutheran. But only you find it necessary to let your partisan view dictate your behavior (or lackthereof).

asinine
:rolleyes: I wonder if anyone could possibly disagree with an assessment of your behavior (not just here, but in general) involving the term. I assumed you reveled in your image.

I suppose it bears repeating that everyone, regardless of marital status, knows that Paul's version of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) (or at least elements of it) is/are critical to a successful, happy marriage. Which illuminates these two-faced forays into devil's advocacy as all the more disappointing.

In conclusion, I'm not sure where I lost you. Paul's larger context is obvious, you ignore it, I conclude your indefensible behavior is partisan/asinine/irrational/whatever/etc. Okay?

...

I think it's fairly safe to assume that few people here are married.Take it a step further; it's fairly safe to assume that even fewer people know about such marriages (if they exist). Doesn't that further damage the credibility of your pretense of confusion? (If I don't think you're married, why would I refer specifically to "your wife"?)

I grow bored with every religious conversation in the IR being drafted as an unwitting participant in your elaborate attempts to stuff your bloated ego.This coming from one who attempts to manipulate or derail every religious thread into a flamewar against Christians and/or a soapbox for his own (or atheism's) intellectual superiority? I really think you'll find that your presence and style bring out the worst in people.

Given your first and second paragraphs, this statement says a great deal about you and your argument. But then, as I'm sure anyone whom has heard you speak at length, "talk the talk" is more your creed than "walk the walk". This post, as most of yours, is around 5% content and 95% showmanship; it could have been iterated with one sentence. "Style over substance" wasn't mean to be taken literally.And that, folks, is how we do a proper "pot kettle black." Honestly, I'd considered making the same observation, nearly word for word, in an earlier post. Oh well, you got another chuckle. ;)

You're more than welcome to point these instances out; of course, that you'd say this without doing so, speaks.To the fact that pointing them out would be an insult to the intelligence of each and every sentient entity on the face of the earth. But what's another insult or two, eh?1. I never mentioned my spouse.
2. I never said that my spouse has any "obligations" in the way of sex.
3. "We" doesn't mean "I".
4. Considering #1 and #2, you've thereby invalidated your own basis for bringing up legalistic rationalism.Yes, I especially like the part where you sponsor your own shitstorm and then hi-five yourself a la eighth grade at the end.

Nice dodge. "Son".(Feel free to exercise this opportunity and further diverge from the subject at hand.)

[GenocideAlive]

Inasmuch as this kindergarten-level resolution succeeds (among other things) in clarifying that I said what I said, the self-evident problem seems to be that I'm going to fast for you. Let's analyze my statements with the purpose of responding rather than dodging. You're responding instead of dodging now? Hallelujah, it only took three posts a flambe.
The answer is love, which Paul talks about incessantly - especially in other places where marriage is discussed.
Obvious and irrefutable.
Bastardizing Paul's context and overall message to squeeze out the love...
Since it's already been established that, elsewhere, Paul both ties marriage directly to love and discusses the importance of love in great detail, it is clear that any un-loving "interpretation" of 1 Corinthians 7 is an evisceration of his context and overall message.

However, rather than vainly waiting for you to dig your own grave through an acknowledgment, I went on to describe possible explanations for your position. (I suppose I could have included "GA is incapable of considering/analyzing multiple blocks of writing simultaneously." But...) You spared me one of your many insults and flames? Good for you, FL. The next step will be to abstain from them entirely and instead rely on your ability to make and support an argument; which obviously needs help. I'm not saying that your motives are occult.

In regard to your message, I'm afraid that I'm not biting. Your over-generalization in order to strong-arm the discussion back into your personal belief structure is just an attempt to marginalize parts of Paul's writing. Paul isn't discussing Love, he's discussing marriage--the two words are most definitely involved (which you rely heavily on to blur the definitions) but are not interchangeable.
partisanship
Anyone gifted with "critical thinking" could easily deduce that 1 Corinthians 7 must be considered in light of Paul's other works. Unfortunately, when a party has a predetermined viewpoint on the subject and refuses to admit error, objective critical thinking is often substituted for a combination of illogical silliness and word spin.(Like now.) I couldn't agree more, for instance, when you state that your "logic" is "irrefuteable", "flawless", and "perfect." Or do you mean that you're a Christian and thus logically unable to ever admit that there is something flawed in your prophets / disciples? Oh well, yet another case of you holding your insult-gun backwards and unintentionally blasting yourself with it.

I don't particularly mind what you want to call yourself or me, because your labels are just desperate attempts to belittle--and your "debating" almost always rely on having the upper hand; imagined or otherwise. If you aren't perceived as having more credibility, information, or basis for speaking, then your opinion is rapidly reduced to exactly that. Then it's left to stand on its own merits--which it does rather poorly.
asinine
I wonder if anyone could possibly disagree with an assessment of your behavior (not just here, but in general) involving the term. I assumed you reveled in your image. Perhaps you should concern yourself a little less with my behavior. Indeed, you seem to be completely oblivious to what reaction your own behavior elicits in your zeal to include as many insults and cut-downs as possible. I'm relatively sure that multiple others consider you an "ass", but the question is, why are you calling names in an "intellectual debate"? I already know the answer, no need to reply.

I also see you skipped "pathetic". Perhaps it's because you've no overly elaborate pseudo-sophisticated justification for that particular "childish invective"? This is also rhetorical.
Take it a step further; it's fairly safe to assume that even fewer people know about such marriages (if they exist). Doesn't that further damage the credibility of your pretense of confusion? (If I don't think you're married, why would I refer specifically to "your wife"?) I'm not confused. You simply wrote in a very poor manner for what you apparently intended. I think that's somewhat of your double-edged sword, though. If it's less clear, it's much easier to manipulate.
This coming from one who attempts to manipulate or derail every religious thread into a flamewar against Christians and/or a soapbox for his own (or atheism's) intellectual superiority? I really think you'll find that your presence and style bring out the worst in people. Ad hominem. You're more than welcome to continue...
And that, folks, is how we do a proper "pot kettle black." Honestly, I'd considered making the same observation, nearly word for word, in an earlier post. Oh well, you got another chuckle. Oh, and you do. You recycle the exact trite "pot-and-kettle" accusation for the Nth time, while you sandwich this between two paragraphs solely dedicated to flaming and a remark about "diverging from the topic at hand". And you imitate Porky Pig while addressing an imaginary audience. Poignant.

I'd be interested in finishing this "discussion", but given your last three posts and their actual content, I think it's fairly certain that you have no intention of debating or skills in that direction. You do not come to the IR for a debate, you come for an elaborate run at attention whoring. I was rolling around the edges of this idea earlier, but it didn't strike me squarely as it has now. I was also thinking that the moderators would eventually step in on your behavior, but I think religious discussions make things 10 times more difficult for them and so they tend to just permit them to run their course.

Anyway, to the people of IR, sorry to waste your time and space with my attempts at debate with FL. I won't do so again.

[FallenLord]

Anything to avoid addressing the fact that Paul's words must be taken in the context of love. ;)

your "debating" almost always rely on having the upper hand; imagined or otherwise. If you aren't perceived as having more credibility, information, or basis for speaking, then your opinion is rapidly reduced to exactly that. Then it's left to stand on its own merits--which it does rather poorly.

I'd be interested in finishing this "discussion", but given your last three posts and their actual content, I think it's fairly certain that you have no intention of debating or skills in that direction.

Etc.This nonsense should be compared to the fact that you've provided no explanation (imaginary or otherwise) as to why anyone should accept your idea that Paul's words should be taken out of the context of his larger message.

Paul isn't discussing Love, he's discussing marriage--the two words are most definitely involved (which you rely heavily on to blur the definitions) but are not interchangeable.The fact that Paul elsewhere connects marriage directly to love (Ephesians 5:25) and writes much on the necessary ubiquity of love leaves no room for the notion that spouses may make demands of each other. End of discussion.

[Neo]

You know I would like to note that I have never seen GA's attempts at debating in religious threads as a way to furthur his 'athiest agenda' or whatever.

What a wierd thing to say.

At any rate, I've always assumed that women didn't get a good deal through any of this. Most of the stuff I've read that deal with marriage or whatever, always seems to say something like "women should stay with thier husbands for thier entire life" or "women shall not get a divorce" etc... While on the male side of things it seems like they are given a free pass, ie: "men shouldn't leave thier wives, but its ok if you do" ... or whatever. Like, if a women leaves her husband, or something like that, its not ok with God, but if a guy does leave his wife or does something else, its alright, its frowned upon, but really theres not any other incentive to not do it.

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

"wives submit to your husbands" etc... et. al.

Women seem to always be given the raw deal out of everything. "The husband is the head of the wife" To me, women are more like the "heads" of a family then a guy. In a traditional setup the wife is the one who raises the children, cooks, cleans, etc... "...so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." -- Oh thats a grand ideal. So women aren't allowed to think for themselves or have a differeing opinion to thier husbands because "men know best"?

Meh, oh well.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

How do you figure that love up to and including sacrificing one's life is a better "deal" than submitting?

When the two go together, as they are meant to, nobody gets a "raw deal."

So women aren't allowed to think for themselves or have a differeing opinion to thier husbandsDon't you think that the context speaks against this interpretation and/or that this is an exaggeration of the word 'submit'?

[Neo]

How do you figure that love up to and including sacrificing one's life is a better "deal" than submitting?

When the two go together, as they are meant to, nobody gets a "raw deal."
So women aren't allowed to think for themselves or have a differeing opinion to thier husbands
Don't you think that the context speaks against this interpretation and/or that this is an exaggeration of the word 'submit'?
Uhm, No. I think its a perfectly good interpertation of it. Since it says it right there "wives shall submit to husbands for anything" -- how else is one supposed to take it?

No really, am I supposed to take that as something different?

These women aren't free. Submiting to thier husbands is not right. I don't care how much 'sacrificing' or 'love' there is, thats just wrong. A woman should not have to submit to her husband simply because hes her husband.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

Uhm, No. I think its a perfectly good interpertation of it.Yet the word 'submit' means "to yield to governance or authority." Not "one is not allowed to think for one's self or have a different opinion." Don't you think your version of 'submit' is exaggerated?

Since it says it right there "wives shall submit to husbands for anything" -- how else is one supposed to take it?Do you think Paul's writings should be resolved into sentences before consideration, or that it might be prudent to take them in context with each other? Why doesn't "husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church" enter into your interpretation?

These women aren't free.Do you think the husbands are "free?"

Submiting to thier husbands is not right. I don't care how much 'sacrificing' or 'love' there is, thats just wrong. A woman should not have to submit to her husband simply because hes her husband.Don't you think the suggestion that no amount of love or sacrifice can balance submission is a little extremist and difficult to defend?

[Neo]

Yet the word 'submit' means "to yield to governance or authority." Not "one is not allowed to think for one's self or have a different opinion." Don't you think your version of 'submit' is exaggerated?
The scripture reads, that women shall submit to their hubands IN ALL THINGS. That means to me, that they are not allowed to differ on anything with their husbands, and in effect, not have any dissenting thoughts or beliefs from them. Dont argue semantics with me, because if thats all you have to reach for, then I am not the one that should be explaining my thoughts on this script.

Do you think Paul's writings should be resolved into sentences before consideration, or that it might be prudent to take them in context with each other? Why doesn't "husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church" enter into your interpretation?
As far as I understand it, Christ was never actually alive when the "church" came into being as a mainstream religon. That came after did it not? So how is one supposed to know how Christ loved the church, or for that matter, if he would love the church at all? That little bit to me didn't really mean all that much to me, as it seemed more like a blurb put in to make people believe that this person is speaking from God or whatever.

There should not be any conditions on love between a man and a wife, and there should be no rules. What I have read, attempts to apply rules to something that shouldn't need them.

Do you think the husbands are "free?"
Uhm, yeah. The minute you restrict a persons freedom in ANY way is when they become a slave or servant. The moment I saw the same old bull I realized that this writing wasn't any different. "submit to your husbands in all things or else!!!!1" I mean really.

The men have a lot more freedom then the women in this scenario.

Don't you think the suggestion that no amount of love or sacrifice can balance submission is a little extremist and difficult to defend?

You should never have to submit to your mate.

Its not extremist at all, its more... romantic? I suppose. You should love your mate unconditionally and love them for who they are. Just because you might be willing to sacrifice yourself for them doesn't give you the right to lord over them or make them "submit to you in all things"

-Neo

[FallenLord]

The scripture reads, that women shall submit to their hubands IN ALL THINGS. That means to meMight you explain why your interpretation, which denies the meaning of the word "submit," should be acceptable alternative to one which embraces the definition?

So how is one supposed to know how Christ loved the church, or for that matter, if he would love the church at all?Because that's why Christ came: The point of Christianity is that Christ loved the church and game himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:25-28)

There should not be any conditions on love between a man and a wife, and there should be no rules. What I have read, attempts to apply rules to something that shouldn't need them.To what authority do you appeal?

"submit to your husbands in all things or else!!!!1"Or else what? Are we debating your version of what Paul said or what Paul actually said?

The men have a lot more freedom then the women in this scenario.Don't you think this reveals a lack of understanding of the scenario? How does the gravity of 'husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her' escape you?

Just because you might be willing to sacrifice yourself for them doesn't give you the right to lord over them or make them "submit to you in all things"Are we debating your version of what Paul said or what Paul actually said? No amount of exaggeration can change Paul's words to yours.

[Neo]

What else does "submit to your husbands in ALL THINGS"

That to me means that whatever the husband decides is final. Whatever the husband wants is what he will get. Whatever the wive wants, desires, or decides doesn't matter though, because she must submit to her husband in all things.

Its worded in a way that makes women to be little more then slaves. Ok yeah, "love her like christ loved the church" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Why didn't it say something like "Love your wife unconditionally" or whatever.

Its not right.

You don't get a right to treat your mate like so much property. Which is what this boils down to, in almost everything I've read there is some passage or other that boils down to women are things, treat them well, but they must do whatever you want them to do.

You are arguing over semantics, and I am arguing for what should be common sense. You do not write "submit to your husbands in all things" if you think women are capable of being independent in thought and mind, or believe that they should think for themselves or make thier own decisions.

How else is one supposed to take that passage or others?

All the man has to do is "love her" and all she has to do is "submit to him in all things" right. Thats a great tradeoff, I mean, any women alive would be glad to do that... right?

Why is it so hard for you understand where I am coming from? "submit to your husbands" that means you must be submissive to them, never disagree with them, you have no say in anything unless your husbands wants it, and even if you disagree the husband as the final say in all matters and according to this verse theres nothing you, as a wife, can do, because after all, your husband "loves you".

Tell me, please, how else is one supposed to take this?

-Neo

[FallenLord]

That to me means...In contrast to 'what it means to me,' "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" objectively refers to Paul's description of love: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protect, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."Would you explain how it is possible for one whose love is those things, especially not proud or self-seeking, to possibly be the slavemaster you describe? Don't you think it is, at worst, implicit that one with such love would obviously take his wife's desires into consideration? How could one possibly not do so?

I understand your position thoroughly:Ok yeah, "love her like christ loved the church" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Why didn't it say something like "Love your wife unconditionally" or whatever.You freely admit your don't understand the context of Paul's writing, but this does not stop you from freely expressing displeasure at Paul's writing. Don't you think it would be appropriate to make an effort to understand the context before expressing your opinion?

Its worded in a way that makes women to be little more then slaves.

You don't get a right to treat your mate like so much property. Which is what this boils down to, in almost everything I've read there is some passage or other that boils down to women are things, treat them well, but they must do whatever you want them to do.Why do you think it's edifying to persist in this slippery slope methodology? Is it because you don't understand the context? Why attack your own version of Paul's words? Why not attack what Paul actually said?

Its not right.And "right" is defined by what? What authority gives you the ability to say something is or isn't "right?" Surely you recognize that the only reason you have the ability to claim that something "isn't right" is because there exists a military and police system to enforce that ability. Isn't it true that as far as you are concerned, might makes right?

You do not write "submit to your husbands in all things" if you think women are capable of being independent in thought and mind, or believe that they should think for themselves or make thier own decisions.Why do you think your opinion of Paul's secret thoughts is relevant? Why do you persist ignoring the definition of the word 'submit?'

How else is one supposed to take that passage or others?With an understanding of what Paul commands of husbands and wives, not just one. It seems you lack an understanding of what Paul commands of husbands, don't you think?

All the man has to do is "love her" and all she has to do is "submit to him in all things" right. Thats a great tradeoff, I mean, any women alive would be glad to do that... right?After you examine what love means (see the top of my post), perhaps you'll see that Paul requires, comparatively, nothing of the wife. All of the educated Lutheran wives I'm familiar with would thoroughly agree.

Why is it so hard for you understand where I am coming from?Because I can't, in good conscience, ignore what Paul commands of husbands simply because of your opinion. Is that so difficult to understand?

Don't you think it would be appropriate to consider the section as a whole, rather than focusing on one verse and ignoring the rest? Don't you also think it would be appropriate to stop exaggerating that one verse out of the context of the others?

[Neo]

Why do you feel the need to pick through my posts?

Its not that hard to find the sentence "submit to your husbands in all things" sexist.

Of which I do. Of which I find a lot of the writing.

You are spouting the same bull -- as if I am wrong becuase my definetion of "submit" or "love" isn't the "right" definition that I should know from the writing of some dead dude who thought he was a prophet.

Well I am sorry, but its wrong -- in any sort of moral sense. You do not ask, or command, your wive to submit to you, REGARDLESS of anything else.

And with that, I am glad I don't follow the Bible, I would never ask my wife to do that. Regardless if I "love her like the church".

If you feel the need to pick that apart, fine, because I am done here.

But so help me, if you post something again that amounts to "you don't understand what submit means" I will assume you have nothing more relevant to add to this thread and simply close it since everyone else seems to have stopped posting in it.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

You do not ask, or command, your wive to submit to you, REGARDLESS of anything else.

I would never ask my wife to do that. Regardless if I "love her like the church".Paul never suggests that husbands should ask/command their wives to submit. Once again, the fact that you are inventing your own version Paul's writings is your undoing. This statement also reveals that you ignored my comments on love. A husband's love does not command submission or even ask for it.

Well I am sorry, but its wrong -- in any sort of moral sense.You seem to have an interesting problem, Neo. On the one hand you call upon some nebulous version of "right/wrong/morality." I use the term "nebulous" because you have yet to provide a source for this "morality." Is it dependent on feelings? Pain? Happiness? Tolerance? Life? Justice? Majority? Is this "morality" objective or subjective? Does it depend on opinions or absolute truths?

And on the other hand, you deny a major source of morality, the Bible. (Specifically, the Bible in the sense that it is God's Word and carries with it God's authority.) Nevertheless, I expect that many of your "moral standards" are taken from Bible to begin with; thou shalt not steal, kill, rape, etc. Yet you also undoubtedly reject other statements of Biblical morality. Fornication and homosexuality, for example.

Thus, I ask you for the basis of your "morality." Additionally, if this basis is something other than absolute, objective and timeless basis, I ask you to explain why you feel you should be allowed to foist this "morality" on anyone besides yourself.

Why do you feel the need to pick through my posts?Because you have made exaggerations and ignored the context, as I already stated. If you refuse to analyze Paul's writings in a remotely balanced or objective fashion, you have no one but yourself to blame for your posts being "picked through."

If you feel the need to pick that apart, fine, because I am done here.That's too bad. I was hoping you would explain where your "morality" comes from, since it seems to be the reason you have a problem with Paul's writings.

I will assume you have nothing more relevant to add to this thread and simply close it since everyone else seems to have stopped posting in it.I'm sure you can close any thread you see fit to close, but I was under the impression that such action was reserved for derailed threads and flamewars. Not because no one is posting in the thread. And thanks to you, this thread is neither derailed nor a flamewar. :)

[Neo]

This is why I try so hard to stay out of threads like this. Because no matter what I say, or any points I try to make, or anything I try to infer, gets twisted, ignored, or thrown way out of proportion.

So whatever, I don't really care what this person wrote down, or what he "really" meant.

"Submit to your husband in all things" means this: If your husband decides to spend his salary on boose instead of a new plow, or cart, then you as the wive can't contradict him. It also seems to me, that it means that the women is not allowed to differ on things with the husband.

For instance, if the women wanted to vote for Preist B but the Husband wants Preist A (for example, I dunno, replace preist with politician if you wish), then the you as a couple will 'vote' for Preist A, regardless of the wifes thoughts or opinions on the matter.

And I can garuntee you that many husbands back then weren't looking at the scripture like that and thinking "Oh look it says wives should submit to us... oh well I guess thats not to bad" no it was probably twisted (like MANY things) to be more along the lines of "Oh look, its in the Bible, and it says wives should submit to us (or however the wording is, since it seems different in every version) so that means they have to do whatever we want!!!

Thats the only point I was trying to make, regardless of whatever else is in the scripture, lines like that really stand out. And it seems to go all the way back to Eve being the one who was tempted and ate the fruit that God told them not to.

It seems as if they were out to make women little more then objects -- more similar to a pet then actualy human equal to a male.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

"Submit to your husband in all things" means this...Amazingly enough, Ephesians 5:22 means something entirely different when you take it in context of Ephesians 5:22-33. Or the rest of Paul's writings for that matter. So what "right" do you have to take Paul's writing's out of their obvious context?

Can't you see that just as you complain that your points are twisted and ignored, you are twisting and ignoring Paul's points? Paul's point is not "wives submit to your husbands in everything." His point is "husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church; wives, submit to your husbands in everything."

All your exaggerations are the result of ignoring Paul's real point and inventing your own point.

Interestingly, the only person who believes the idea "wives submit to your husbands in everything" exists is you.

Want to know why neither Paul nor I believes that? Because Paul has commands for both partners which cannot be separated from each other, as you keep trying to do. And he happens to give husbands a vastly more difficult call.

It's ironic that you "guarantee that husbands back then probably twisted Paul's meaning" when you yourself are perpetuating the same false, twisted interpretation. You are living proof that people twist Paul's meaning.

...

Still waiting for the basis of your "morality."

[TinyDancer]

Interestingly, the only person who believes the idea "wives submit to your husbands in everything" exists is you.



The problem is, he's not. All kinds of people pick and choose what they want out of the bible, and that one line, out of context, tends to be used as an excuse a lot. Paul's words should have not included a line like that which could be so twisted and manipulated. The "Love is gentle, love is kind....." stuff, should apply to men and women, and that should be the end of it, because if everyone followed that, then there would be no need for the submission line. But, Paul assumed that women weren't capable of doing that, or something, and threw in a line of submission. So many things are taken out of context in the bible, and so many things are disregarded. If a man is castrated, whether by his own fault or not it doesn't say, he isn't allowed to worship in the temple. Most people just say "Well that's old, it doesn't matter." But if you say the bible shouldn't be picked through, then tell me that when 2 people are caught committing adultery, they should be stoned to death.

People pick and choose. Deal with it. Saying that wives should submit to their husbands in all things is sexist. It can be taken in so much the wrong way.

[FallenLord]

It's disappointing that no one jumps on the extraordinarily high demands Paul places on husbands.

People pick and choose. Deal with it.If by "deal with it" you mean "boldly correct all errors," I already do.

Paul's words should have not included a line like that which could be so twisted and manipulated.It's not my fault for stealing the candy, it's your fault for leaving it there? Paul's meaning is crystal clear. Those who twist and misuse his words do so either out of a disrespect for the Bible or pure malice, not by accident or out of honest ignorance (though perhaps stupidity). Their motives are not difficult to ferret out.

But, Paul assumed that women weren't capable of doing that, or something, and threw in a line of submission."Or something" sounds about right. However, a proper understanding of why Paul says what he says requires one to take the Bible seriously. So I think I'll leave this one blank.

So many things are taken out of context in the bible, and so many things are disregarded.Confessional Lutherans, by definition, do neither.

If a man is castrated, whether by his own fault or not it doesn't say, he isn't allowed to worship in the temple. Most people just say "Well that's old, it doesn't matter."And then the people who know what they are talking about explain the difference between the "moral law" and the "sacrificial law." The sacrificial laws were all connected to the Old Covenant that God made with Israel. Jesus fulfilled all of the laws, including the laws specific to the Old Covenant. And now there is a New Covenant for Christians which does not include the sacrificial laws. Paul makes this very clear in his discussions about "holy days" and other such practices that are not set in stone under the New Covenant. See, that wasn't hard.

But if you say the bible shouldn't be picked through, then tell me that when 2 people are caught committing adultery, they should be stoned to death.I think you're confusing "pick through" with "ignore the context." An analysis of the context clearly reveals that the Israelites were to stone adulterers. This is, again, an example of Israel's Old Covenant - which included a theocracy with God-given laws. Fortunately, Paul makes it very clear that Christians are now under a New Covenant - which does not include a theocracy with specific, God-given laws. (Christians are to obey whatever governmental authority they find themselves under, as Paul also makes clear.) Again, this is an easy conclusion if one studies the Bible as a unit.

...

By the way. You seem to be hinting at the same "moral standard" to which Neo directly alluded. I'm still interested in any elaboration on the subject.